Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed v PP: Rioting with Deadly Weapons & Criminal Intimidation

In Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed and Others v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals against conviction and sentence for six appellants convicted of rioting whilst armed with deadly weapons, with additional charges for disorderly behavior and criminal intimidation for some. The charges stemmed from a brawl outside Mohican's Pub. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed all appeals, finding the convictions and sentences were justified based on witness testimonies and the severity of the offenses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving convictions for rioting with deadly weapons and criminal intimidation. Appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal dismissedWon
Janet Wang of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Rupesh KumarAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Md Anverdeen Basheer AhmedAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Rajendran s/o RajagopalAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Sambalingam TAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Natarajan s/o ChinnaiahAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Retnam MohandasAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Retnam Mohandas of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Janet WangDeputy Public Prosecutor
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Ramesh TiwaryEdmond Pereira and Partners
Rakesh VasuGomez and Vasu
ThangaveluRajah Velu and Co
Retnam MohandasIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Six appellants were convicted of rioting whilst armed with deadly weapons.
  2. The incident occurred on Prinsep Street on the morning of 20 October 2001.
  3. The appellants, along with two others, were alleged to have rioted whilst armed with deadly weapons.
  4. The fourth appellant was the father of the second appellant, and Sean Clinton was the second appellant’s uncle.
  5. The Prosecution's case was that the appellants were having a drinking session together at Jalan Berseh Food Centre.
  6. An argument ensued between the second appellant and Mohan outside Mohican’s Pub.
  7. Sean Clinton, the third appellant, the sixth appellant and Manogaran were seen climbing over the wall of Mohican’s Pub and throwing beer barrels.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Md Anverdeen Basheer Ahmed and Others v Public Prosecutor, MA 49/2004, 50/2004, 51/2004, 53/2004, 54/2004, 64/2004, [2004] SGHC 233
  2. PP v Perumal Naidu Surendra Sean Clinton, , [2004] SGDC 129

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Incident occurred on Prinsep Street
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Rioting Whilst Armed with Deadly Weapons
    • Outcome: The court upheld the convictions for rioting whilst armed with deadly weapons, finding that the elements of the offence were met.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Disorderly Behaviour
    • Outcome: The court upheld the convictions for disorderly behaviour.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Criminal Intimidation
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for criminal intimidation.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the trial judge should not have relied on the statements of the fifth and sixth appellants in rejecting the first appellant’s defence.
    • Category: Procedural
  5. Essentials of Content of Charge
    • Outcome: The court found that the charge was not flawed because it did not provide details about the alleged violence caused by the members of the illegal assembly.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rioting
  • Disorderly behaviour
  • Criminal Intimidation

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 789SingaporeCited for the principle that under s 149 of the Penal Code, it is only necessary to show that one or more members of the unlawful assembly was armed with a deadly weapon for the charges against the appellants to be made out.
Lim Ah Poh v PPCourt of AppealYes[1992] 1 SLR 713SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or clearly reached against the weight of evidence.
Teo Kian Leong v PPHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR 147SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or clearly reached against the weight of evidence.
PP v Tan Lian TiongHigh CourtYes[2002] 3 SLR 461SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are plainly wrong or clearly reached against the weight of evidence.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v PPCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 656SingaporeCited for the principle that where findings of fact hinge on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of witnesses, an appellate court should be slow to overturn these findings of fact.
Ng Kwee Leong v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 942SingaporeCited for the principle that absolute truth is beyond human perception and conflicting versions of an incident, even by honest and disinterested witnesses, is a common occurrence.
Chean Siong Guat v PPFederal CourtYes[1969] 2 MLJ 63MalaysiaCited for the principle that absolute truth is beyond human perception and conflicting versions of an incident, even by honest and disinterested witnesses, is a common occurrence.
R v TurnbullCourt of AppealYes[1977] QB 224England and WalesCited for the guidelines as to the factors that the court should consider in determining the reliability of identification evidence.
Heng Aik Ren Thomas v PPCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 465SingaporeCited for the three-step test to determine the reliability of identification evidence.
PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2)High CourtYes[1977] 1 MLJ 15MalaysiaCited for the principle that there is no rule of law that the testimony of a witness must either be believed in its entirety or not at all.
Osman bin Ramli v PPHigh CourtYes[2002] 4 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the observation that it would not be unusual for witnesses to come up with different accounts of the same event, particularly where the situation was chaotic and the time interval short.
Assathamby s/o Karupiah v PPCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR 744SingaporeCited for the principle that a charge should state all the essential ingredients of an offence.
Goh Ang Huat v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 3 SLR 570SingaporeCited for the principle that violence is the essence of a breach of peace.
Chin Siong Kian v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR 72SingaporeCited for the principle that it is at the close of the Prosecution’s case that the court is in the best position to decide exactly what was the case that the accused was required to meet.
Lim Thian Hor v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR 258SingaporeCited for the principle that mere presence in an assembly of persons does not make an accused a member of an unlawful assembly unless there is direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the accused shared the common object of the assembly.
Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PPHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR 305SingaporeCited for the principle that financial hardship is only a mitigating factor in the most extreme of circumstances.
PP v Ong Ker SengHigh CourtYes[2001] 4 SLR 180SingaporeCited for the principle that ill-health would only be a mitigating factor in exceptional cases as an act of mercy, such as where the offender suffers from a terminal illness.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1987 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Rioting
  • Deadly weapons
  • Criminal intimidation
  • Disorderly behaviour
  • Common object
  • Unlawful assembly
  • Affray
  • Evidence
  • Witness testimony
  • Identification evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • Rioting
  • Criminal Law
  • Singapore
  • Appeal
  • Conviction
  • Sentence
  • Weapons
  • Intimidation
  • Disorderly

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure85
Sentencing80
Evidence70
Admissibility of evidence60
Adverse inferences50
Confessions30
Pleadings2
Obstruction of Justice1
Obstructing the Course of Justice1
Lobbying1
Penal Code1
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice1
Public Prosecutor1
Consent of Public Prosecutor1
Irregularities in proceedings1
Defective consent of Public Prosecutor1
Curative powers of court1
Public Order Offences1
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act1

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Evidence
  • Sentencing